Granville Sharp's rule states that when a clause has two nouns (or other substantive) in the same case, connected by a copulative kai ("and"), that are not proper nouns (i.e. not someone's name), which describe a person, and the first noun has the definite article while the second does not, both nouns are describing the same person. If one or more of the nouns is plural in number, this may not apply but can.

Yeah, you aren't going to get a better answer than the Wallace article linked above. He works through what the rule states and doesn't state, goes over undebated examples of when it applies in the NT, and examines Greek outside the Testament (classical and patristic uses). I'd call it an exhaustive article. Wallace writes in his conclusion: "Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to deny that 'God and Savior' refers to one person, Jesus Christ."
–
Frank LukeMar 21 '14 at 20:46

@david brainerd - just looking at a couple of them (1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:3, Eph 1:2), there is no article, so the rule doesn't apply.
–
Susan♦Jul 27 '14 at 4:52

1

To the literature cited in previous comments should be added Daniel Wallace's monograph, Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (Peter Lang, 2009), which received a substantial, appreciative, courteous, and pointedly critical review by Stanley Porter in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 53/4 (2010), 828-832 (that link gets the 70-page PDF of all reviews for that number of the journal).
–
DavïdApr 14 at 21:33

The presumption here would be to determine whether or not consistency occurs throughout. In the case of the New Testament (4 instances) the presumptive analysis of morphology appears consistent -- that is, the concatenated words seem to appear as an appositive phrase.

However, in the Septuagint (1 instance), the concatenated words do not seem to appear as an appositive phrase. That is, we read of the servant (Solomon) and people. In this particular instance, however, the words following the phrase "the people" are σου Ισραηλ. These qualifying words, however, seem to appear so that the reader would understand that "people" is in reference to the nation (Israel). In other words, without the qualifying phrase "σου Ισραηλ," the reader might have otherwise inferred --based on the grammatical structure of the sentence-- that the servant and people (both singular nouns) were the same entity.

@Jas3.1 - Would not the example from the LXX be reasonable and relevant to the original question?
–
JosephApr 13 at 20:22

1

@Jas3.1 - no - click here. This example from the LXX carries no ones name, and thus no personal pronouns are involved. I was hoping this example was relevant to the original question....
–
JosephApr 13 at 22:00